The effectiveness of Bayesian state‐space models for estimating behavioural states from movement paths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Bayesian state‐space movement models have been proposed as a method of inferring behavioural states from movement paths (Morales et al . 2004), thereby providing insight into the behavioural processes from which patterns of animal space use arise in heterogeneous environments. It is not clear, however, how effective state‐space models are at estimating behavioural states. We use stochastic simulations of two movement models to quantify how behavioural state movement characteristics affect classification error. State‐space movement models can be a highly effective approach to estimating behavioural states from movement paths. Classification accuracy was contingent upon the degree of separation between the distributions that characterize the states (e.g. step length and turn angle distributions) and the relative frequency of the behavioural states. In the best case scenarios classification accuracy approached 100%, but was close to 0% when step length and turn angle distributions of each state were similar, or when one state was rare. Mean classification accuracy was uncorrelated with path length, but the variance in classification accuracy was inversely related to path length. Importantly, we find that classification accuracy can be predicted based on the separation between distributions that characterize the movement paths, thereby providing a method of estimating classification accuracy for real movement paths. We demonstrate this approach using radiotelemetry relocation data of 34 moose ( Alces alces ). We conclude that Bayesian state‐space models offer powerful new opportunities for inferring behavioural states from relocation data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".